Home » Blog
February 03, 2010 at 8:38pm
Major technology providers are beating street estimates lately as technology spending is seemingly on the mend.
As spending picks up and market conditions change, will Clients and suppliers be able to develop and maintain sustainable agreements that offer best in class pricing, flexible terms and conditions, and serve as a guide on how to do good, long term business together?
January 26, 2010 at 10:45am
When evaluating the potential impact of end of support, Clients should consider the stability of their applications, the feasibility and costs for moving to other solutions, and the risks associated with prolonged downtime for the applications.
January 10, 2010 at 10:12pm
SAP is including new language into Agreements, Amendments and Appendices which may limit the contractual rights of its customer, disallowing any future termination of maintenance and support services, of any software and users on an ad hoc or line item basis, or termination of any individual appendix. SAP is including new language that suggests the only way it will contemplate any kind of maintenance and support services termination is if it applies to all Appendices and licensed software. Clearly, SAP is addressing the recent market changes and responding to increased threats of competing support alternatives. This “all or nothing” approach seems to be aimed at eliminating a client’s ability to manage any kind of blended support solution.
December 29, 2009 at 8:36am
Microsoft's Select and Enterprise Agreements have long provided for a 30-day grace period at the expiration of the Agreement, for customers to decide whether (or not) to renew Software Assurance.
However: In the latest version of Microsoft's Agreements, the 30-day grace period was eliminated. This now means that Software Assurance must be renewed before the expiration of the enrollment or customers may be required to purchase new licenses to remain in compliance with their Agreements.
The apparent goal of this change is to shift the balance of negotiations power to Microsoft at the time of renewal. Clients should be in a position to make final decisions 90-days prior to Agreement expiration, and the time required for a Client to fully review its Microsoft investments averages 90 days.
As a result, NET(net) now recommends an engagement start date of no less than six months prior to Agreement expiration for Clients to perform an initial assessment of their Microsoft Agreements and/or renewals.
In addition, the Change of Channel Partner (COCP) form for your Large Account Re-Seller (LAR) is also changing. The time between the date a customer signs the COCP and the day the COCP takes effect will increase from 30 to 90 days. This is another good reason why Clients want to be prepared to implement all changes 90-days in advance of Agreement expiration and/or renewal.
With the COCP change, we now recommend that EA customers review their LAR relationships annually, and if dissatisfied, there will be ample time to either remedy the LAR relationship or to change LARs before the next annual True-Up.
NET(net) will help Clients perform Microsoft Investment Optimizations and/or annual LAR evaluations, at least six months prior to Agreement expiration to ensure Clients have enough runway to achieve their Microsoft Investment goals and objectives.
Note- many Clients have annual true-ups in June, so January is a great time to get started. Stay tuned to this blog for more information on how you can make the most of your technology investments.
Scott Braden
December 01, 2009 at 2:36pm
In negotiations, whether we realize it or not, our cooperation increases the size of the pie for everyone (creates value) and our defection defines our slice of it (claims value).
We often develop imaginative ways to create value through the promise of mutual gains and introduce these 'carrots' into our negotiation strategy at the appropriate point as to maximize their impact and benefit. As it relates to cooperation and the use of carrots, most of us consider ourselves fairly effective with this approach.
What happens when the other party isn't cooperating, however? Are we as effective at bringing them back to the bargaining table? Are we as capable of putting the deal back on the tracks?
Quite simply, what happens when they say no when we really want them to say yes? How do we move them to our way of thinking? That is the art of negotiation. The art of letting *them* have *your* way.
Former Secretary of State James Baker once famously said (and I'm paraphrasing here), Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie long enough until you can find a big rock with which to smash it in the head. If there is no rock, negotiation is pointless… How many of us negotiate without a rock? I can't tell you the number of times I've had a client say we're just going to tell our supplier we want to buy their stuff, but we need a better price. I nod politely and ask, "or what"? Puzzled, they ask, what do you mean "or what"? I explain, and what if they say no? What if they say this is the best possible discount they are able to offer you? What will you do then?
You see, the "or what" is the rub. Gee Mr. Supplier, we'd like you to give us a better discount. If you're not prepared to answer the "or what", you are just Oliver Twist asking for more. Seemingly, we are much less prepared to correct behaviors that are counter-productive to our goals and objectives. The use of 'sticks' in a negotiation is every bit as important as carrots, and in many cases, much more so. When one party cooperates and the other party defects, the defecting party claims value. When both parties defect, not only is no value created, no value is claimed either. It stands to reason then, that you can prevent the defecting party from claiming value by defecting. Sometimes the best way, perhaps the only way to bring a defecting party back to the bargaining table is to defect yourself.
Easier said than done? Defection in a negotiation is often viewed with a negative connotation, and is also often confused with the end objective. Some view it as confrontational or even as threatening. Regardless of how it's viewed, a defection strategy is often justified. Defecting from a negotiation can be extremely effective…